Removes orders in the right set from the left set, using primary keys to compare, and returns the remaining orders. Use this to identify which orders exist only in the left set.
subtract two Order sets, identified by primary keys and reloaded for this session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| left | Yes | ||
| right | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says the sets are 'reloaded for this session.' It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, what permissions are needed, or what the return value represents.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no fluff. It packs the core operation, the resource type, and a behavioral note about reloading into one line. However, it could be more structured to highlight key aspects like operand order and result.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is thin. It omits any indication of what the result is (a set of order keys? full order objects?), whether the operation mutates data, or any prerequisites. The 'reloaded for this session' hint is vague and not expanded.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify parameter meaning. It mentions 'primary keys,' which implies the array elements are keys, but it does not explain the semantics of left vs. right or whether the operation is symmetric. This leaves the agent guessing about operand roles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('subtract') and resource ('Order sets'), and the set-operation meaning is clear from the tool name. However, it does not explicitly state that 'left' is the set from which 'right' is subtracted, leaving room for ambiguity about operand order.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings like union_order, intersect_order, or subtract_customer. An agent cannot tell from the description whether this is appropriate for a given scenario or how it differs from similar set operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.